"...Psi studies do show that creative people -- musicians,
writers, artists -- perform better than not-so-creative people. This fits with
your idea of the polymath as being more in contact with multiple realities than
the more conventional person." - Dr. Dean Radin in email

The "infinite meta-structure" mentioned in earlier essays
(and often given such labels as "God", "Allah", etc.) is characterized as being
everywhere present in all dimensions. It is absolutely independent of
context - "context independent". Every object in the known anthropic 3D
universe is context dependent and naturally characterized with a "time" and
"place" whether in the past, present, or future. Human beings are of
course bound tightly to the Earth's ecosystem as well as sociocultural forces. A
person cannot grow from childhood without interactions with its surroundings in
the known 3D universe. Psychologists, scientists, religious people, among
many others generally understand and believe these notions as stated here.

Some persons however have a drive to transcend the
limitations of the common 3D universe anthropic comfort zone. Those
persons are labeled with variants of "spiritual seeker" or "mystic". It
stands to reason that the most legitimate direct approach to such spiritualism
is simply to imitate as best as possible (within human limitations) the
"infinite meta-structure" and strive at every possible opportunity to be
"context independent". Now what does this mean in practical terms?
It is the striving to be infinitely adaptable. It is not feasible to be
infinitely anything as a human being, but it is certainly feasible to try.
This is the essence of a true spiritual or mystical seeking.

A person could be infinitely adaptable if they possessed an
infinitely broad and deep spectrum of knowledge. Such a person would "know
what to do" in whatever conceivable or inconceivable situation. There are
semantic contradictions here of course since only a meta-entity could possess an
infinitely broad and deep knowledge. The ideal could only at best be
approached asymptotically. The best shot at this would be by the
"Renaissance person" or "polymath".
A polymath could never possess infinite knowledge, but rather a limited but
broad and deep knowledge base at best. However, the polymath tends to in
effect "parallel" or mimic the infinite meta-structure at some level. This
is the legitimate base for spiritual growth and seeking. The mystic or
spiritual seeker must make their full spread of talent available for the
undertaking. Otherwise the seeking has high probability of being not much
more than mere self-delusion and thus never truly transcendent.

Summary: Doesn't it stand to reason that if there is a
meta-structure - commonly labeled "God" and a jillion other terms through
history and cultures - that the most valid spiritual or mystical search would be
simply to personally try and imitate this meta-form to the greatest extent
possible? If that meta-form is "all knowing" as is commonly promoted, then the
best shot at understanding that meta-form would lie in becoming a polymath or
"Renaissance" person as has been discussed directly and analogically throughout
Open Mystic. There's no risk even since "knowing a lot", i.e. having the
personal broadest and deepest range of knowledge possible, is fun and has
numerous worldly benefits. But I project that the polymath has the best
statistical possibility at understanding "God", the meta-form. "God" is
context independent by being everywhere and all knowing. Why not try as
best you can to be the same ?? That is the most valid spiritual or
mystical search.